read_grid_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description only states the action and data; it does not disclose whether it reads from the current scene, whether the optional scene_path alters behavior, or if there are any side effects, placing the full burden on an under-specified description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler; it is front-loaded with the action and key details. While sparse, it is not wordy, earning a high score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameter semantics, the description gives only a high-level summary; it omits how scene_path affects the result, the result format, and any fallback behavior, making the tool under-specified for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one optional parameter scene_path with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess how to scope the listing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'GridMap nodes' and explicitly mentions the data returned ('cell size and mesh library references'), making it distinct from generic read_* siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_tilemap or read_scene; there are no exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.